rigorousintuition.ca

Posted: **Tue Jan 24, 2006 8:37 am**

Speaking Out Against Wars of Aggression Harry Belafonte Reaffirms a Proud Tradition By WILLIAM LOREN KATZ "President George W. Bush] lied to the people of this nation, distorted the truth, declared war on a nation who had not attacked us . . . put Americas sons and daughters in harm's way . . . and destroyed the lives of tens of thousands of [Iraqi] women and children who had nothing to do with it. It was an act of terror." Harry Belafonte, Amsterdam News, January 25, 2006, Page 1, 30 Harry Belafonte did more than speak truth to a President who lied to justify an invasion that has taken the lives of more than 2,000 Americans and tens of thousands of Iraqis. He became part of a proud African American tradition Frederick Douglass started in 1848. Frederick Douglass excoriated President Polk's administration for "grasping ambition, atrocious aggression, and wholesale murder of an unoffending people" in "a disgraceful, cruel, and iniquitous war," and demanded "the instant recall of U.S. forces from Mexico." President Polk lied to justify a U.S. invasion that seized land stretching from Texas to California for new slave states. "I would not care if tomorrow, I should hear of the death of every man who engaged in that bloody war," said Douglass. (Congressman Abraham Lincoln also reviled Polk for ordering an invasion of an innocent neighbor based on a lie.) During the Spanish American War of 1898, another conflict based on a lie, anti-lynching crusader War Ida B. Wells urged her people to oppose all overseas actions until Black citizens at home were safe from lynching. Lewis Douglass, Civil War hero and the son of Frederick Douglass, said the McKinley administration's invasion of the Philippines would bring "race hate and cruelty, barbarous lynchings and gross injustice to dark people." A.M.E. Bishop Henry M. Turner not only denounced the occupation but was appalled that 6,000 Black soldiers were sent "to subjugate a people of their own color. I can scarcely keep from saying that I hope the Filipinos wipe such soldiers from the face of the earth." Black U.S. troops were divided. One soldier charged his country was conducting "a gigantic scheme of robbery and oppression," and another admitted, "These people are right and we are wrong, terribly wrong." Twenty U.S. soldiers, including 12 African Americans, defected to Filipino General Emilio Aguinaldo and his freedom-fighting army. In 1951 during the Korean War Paul Robeson opposed U.S. helping "a corrupt clique of politicians [in South Korea]." "If we don't stop our armed adventure in Korea today," he warned, "tomorrow it will be Africa." W.E.B. Du Bois saw the war as "the culmination of a wicked and shameful policy . . . which our government has ruthlessly pursued with respect to the colonial people of the world." Government agents harassed Robeson and Du Bois, and the U.S. State Department lifted their passports. Du Bois, who had founded a Peace Information Center to circulate the "Stockholm Peace Petition" demanding a ban on nuclear weapons, was arrested and tried as a foreign agent. After Du Bois won in court, he told a Madison Square Garden Rally "We are peddling freedom to the world . . . and dropping death on those who refuse to use it." African Americans were a vital part of the massive protests that helped end the Viet Nam War. In 1965 the first organization to denounce the war was the Black-led Freedom Democratic Party of McComb, Mississippi. Stokely Carmichael and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. brought a huge anti-war march to the United Nations where Carmichael led the chant: "Hell no, we won't go." King called the United States "the largest purveyor of violence in the world today" and urged young men to avoid the draft. When world heavyweight champion Muhammad Ali was stripped of his title because he refused to report for military service, he refused to be silent: "No, I am not going ten thousand miles to help murder and kill and burn other people simply to help continue the domination of white slave masters over the dark people of the world." Harry Belafonte has raised to new heights a proud, patriotic, American and African American tradition--opposition to a President who sacrifices young Americans lives in the course of promoting and justifying wars of aggression William Loren Katz is the author of Black Indians: A Hidden Heritage. His new, revised edition of THE BLACK WEST [Harlem Moon/Random House, 2005] also includes information on the Philippine occupation, and can now be found in bookstores. He can be reached through his website: www.williamlkatz.com

Posted: **Tue Jan 24, 2006 11:16 am**

Paul Robeson's career was shattered by saying the things he did during the McCarthy era... Good piece of writing. And yes, those (of any color or flavor) who have felt hard times, tend to be more understanding of others in similar positions. --MaryK

Posted: **Tue Jan 24, 2006 9:19 pm**

What do you all think about this? ------------------------------- Daou Report by Peter Daou Was Race a Factor in Russert's Obama Interview? (cross-posted on HuffPo): In light of the still-burning Chris Matthews scandal, I watched Sunday's political shows with keener interest than usual. And something very strange happened on Meet The Press: Tim Russert asked Senator Barack Obama to respond to Harry Belafonte's remarks about George W. Bush being the "greatest terrorist in the world." My question is, why? Why did Russert ask Obama in particular about the statements of someone who isn't an elected official, who doesn't speak for Democrats, who doesn't represent Obama, who doesn't represent the Democratic Party, who is entitled to his own opinion. Why? Since when does an elected Democrat have to answer for the words of a citizen, however outrageous those words, even if that citizen has a public profile? And what's the real motive behind bringing the Belafonte quote into a discussion with Obama? The guilt-by-association game between terrorists and Democrats has been in hyper-drive this past week, with Matthews and MSNBC, the Bush cheerleaders at FOX, Bob Schieffer and others ramming this RNC-driven talking point down our collective throats. Was this just more of the same? Not to mention the painfully obvious racial angle... UPDATE: An astute blogger tells us about the only other time (based on a preliminary search) that Russert asked a guest about Belafonte. And who was that guest? Why, Colin Powell.... Do the math. <a href="http://daoureport.salon.com/synopsis.aspx?synopsisId=6f052bca-17ea-4b85-a2d4-ba85a5589324">daoureport.salon.com/syno...85a5589324</a> See, also: To Tim Russert <a href="http://openlettertotimrussert.blogspot.com/2006/01/to-tim-russert-why-did-you-ask-senator.html">openlettertotimrussert.bl...nator.html</a>

Posted: **Tue Jan 24, 2006 11:03 pm**

Yeah, it's So-o-o transparent. What do they think we are? Total fools. Seems like. It's like they have these "show case" negros (Condi Rice, Colin Bowel etc) that they drag out whenever they need to try and bolster their public image. What scums. Condi Rice--buying 9 thousand dollar shoes while NO drowned. I end up talking to a lot of folks some days and I find it very interesting indeed to see how the issues divide us. I will say this: overall Black Americans KNOW the truth. I don't have to tell them about 9-11 and they know damn well Katrina was NOT a natural disaster. It was ethnic cleansing, pure and simple.

Posted: **Tue Jan 24, 2006 11:15 pm**

Did you guys see Belafonte on Wolf Blitzer today? He was fantastic! Called that man a tyrant and a terrorist and didn't back off. Said his mentor was MLK, and he was going to speak the truth. Wolfie tried to bog him down in semantics, but Mr. Belafonte was having none of it, just kept giving that truth. You could tell Wolfie didn't know what just walked up and slapped his face.

Posted: **Wed Jan 25, 2006 12:10 pm**

Missed Belafonte on Blitzer, sorry. Tellya what - I much admired Al Sharpton's performance in the 2004 debates. Lots of people I know made fun of his candidacy - until they heard what he had to say. And who can forget Sharpton's rousing speech at the Dem Convention? Best 20 minutes of the entire program, imnsho. I loved that he refused to yield the floor. We need that 'in your face' and 'who's going to make me' attitude if we're to be heard. An aside - there was only one moment in Michael Moore's F-9/11 that moved me to tears: the footage that showed non-white representatives standing on the Senate floor asking for just one Senator to stand up for them to challenge the Florida electoral college's vote for George Bush. No one did. No one. Has anyone else considered the possibility that people of color, historically disenfranchised by race and class, may be the salvation of American democracy? For them, vis-à-vis voting rights, it's the early 1960s all over again. This time, they have representation. John Conyers is my idea of a Democrat, much more so than Obama. Look at the movement to impeach, based on the Downing Street Memos. John Conyers is a tenacious and careful man, someone I admire.

Posted: **Wed Jan 25, 2006 12:45 pm**

I think it's a mistake to use collective definitions to determine who's saving democracy and who's defaming and destroying it. If you're helping, you're helping; if you aren't, you aren't. I like the work the Congressional Black Caucus has been doing. But they don't walk on water. And if you bother to dig, you're liable to be faced with the same disillusionments with regard to some of the members that one finds in the case of white folks. The same goes for the entertainment community. One reason that I bring this up is that I've just finished the book Labyrinth, by Randall Sullivan, which is an inquiry into the murders of Tupac Shakur and the Notorious B.I.G. People talk about their fear of the government harrassing them for exercising free speech rights, but in terms of open harrassment, some journalists, artists, and business competitors have assumed more risk- and suffered more serious consequences- in criticizing some of the rappers and their labels than radical American political journalists have faced from official scrutiny. This gets even gnarlier when one finds out, as I did by reading Labyrinth, that much of rap mogul and Death Row Records founder Suge Knight's bodyguard and protection crew was drawn from the rolls of LAPD. Active LAPD. And his original and long-time legal counsel, David Kenner, is mobbed up. On reflection, I realize that I shouldn't have been surprised. Having researched the topic, I should have known better than most people how pervasive the corruption of Prohibition War 2 really is. Still, to read Labyrinth is to see the other side of the coin of Gary Webb's book Dark Alliance. Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=robertdreed>robertdreed</A> at: 1/25/06 10:01 am

Posted: **Wed Jan 25, 2006 1:03 pm**

I'll definitely be buying Labyrinth for my son's upcoming birthday, as he is keenly interested in what really happened to Tupac Shakur. Thanks for the recommend. But rdr, you said: ____________________________________________________ if you bother to dig, you're liable to be faced with the same disillusionments with regard to some of the members that one finds in the case of white folks. The same goes for the entertainment community. ____________________________________________________ If you bother to dig, your liable to be faced with the same disillusionments with regard to anybody.

Posted: **Wed Jan 25, 2006 1:20 pm**

Nobody said anything about anyone 'walking on water.' I am troubled by your immediate leap to gansta rap culture in what was intended to be a point about how the chronic non-representation of non-whites enabled a George Bush to become president. If non-whites participated in democracy in the same proportion to their population numbers we would see a dramatic shift in power, away from the white ruling class. FWIW: I happen to agree with Howard Dean's description of the Republican Party majority as male, Christian, and white. They do not represent a majority in American society, but they govern as if they do. That bothers me. Always has. In my point about saving democracy, I am talking about people of color (people who identify themselves as non-white) becoming motivated to vote, to become activists for voting rights in their local communities, and to run for political office. Outspoken people like Harry Belafonte and Al Sharpton have a good deal of social, if not political, capital, and I like that they are speaking out. Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=wolfmoonlady>Wolfmoon Lady</A> <IMG HEIGHT=10 WIDTH=10 SRC="http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b130/wolfmoon_lady/apgreywolf.jpg" BORDER=0> at: 1/25/06 10:22 am

Posted: **Wed Jan 25, 2006 5:50 pm**

In my observation, there are problems associated with movements that coalesce around ethnic lines, no matter what those lines are. They're typically unable to police themselves, and easily infiltrated by whoever has the most money to throw around, which is often the gangsters. It's not much different in that respect from a lot of business lobbies. But complications arise when a stance of moral authority is assumed simply because someone belongs to an ethnic minority group with a history of oppression. It gets yet more complicated when corrupt organizations like the two major political parties seek to enlist allegiances based on those lines. There's also a problem with political leaders and spokespeople who pigeonhole themselves on the basis of ethnicity. By becoming the go-to people on issues concerning their own specialized ethnic category, they often find themselves with a reputation related exculsively to their ethnicity. I think about how much more effective Kanye West's comments would have been if, instead of saying that "George W. Bush doesn't care about black people" he had said that "George W. Bush doesn't care about poor people." I think Al Sharpton is a shrewd and intelligent politician. I give him a lot of credit for finessing the people who were trying to sting him into participating in a coke deal. It was obvious to me that he didn't want to touch that with a 10-foot pole. But for other reasons, mostly related to his pie-in-the-sky political promising, I still don't trust him. And I have reservations about those who overlook his demagoguery to make common cause with him. That said, I have much bigger problems with the people who are presently legitimizing the leadership qualities of George W. Bush, which at this point includes almost everyone in the Democratic Party. Frankly, I'd like to see someone declare the whole farce illegitimate and resign on the floor of Congress, in public, on C-Span. John Conyers I like a lot. If I brought up the fact that the Congressional Black Caucus doesn't walk on water, it's only because I wish they did. They're the most courageous group in Congress, about challenging George W. Bush. sunny, sorry about not crossing the i and dotting the t on that one statement. The way you put it was more accurate. "If non-whites participated in democracy in the same proportion to their population numbers we would see a dramatic shift in power, away from the white ruling class." That's their call. It isn't as if they can't vote, these days. And I question if increased minority participation is the key to any "dramatic shift in power", in a meaningful sense, as long as the candidates remain the product of the same culling process, which is largely based on the ability to get fund-raising and jump through the hoops of the Establishment protege system. Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=robertdreed>robertdreed</A> at: 1/25/06 6:11 pm

Posted: **Wed Jan 25, 2006 6:46 pm**

Crooks and Liars is an excellent site to catch up on clips like that for those of us who can't bear to watch TV. Belafonte is not having any of Blitzers glib feigned moral indignation. <a href="http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/01/24.html#a6844">www.crooksandliars.com/20...html#a6844</a>

Posted: **Wed Jan 25, 2006 10:53 pm**

robertdreed, I'm going to use the politically incorrect, banned, hateful word only twice, and then I'm going to try to explain myself to you and the board. The Irreverent Al Sharpton is a "nigger", plain and simple. Now, I must define my terms to all of you. When I was 16, circa 1964, there was a dumb joke going around my high school which I didn't find funny in any way. It posited that the NAACP stood for: Niggers Ain't Always Colored People. I wasn't really that offended by the joke at the time, not because I understood the centuries of racial struggles, but because I was, at that age already aware of the "real" definition of the word. It referred, in my young mind, to a person (of ANY race, religion, sex, or color) who stole, lied, slacked, bullied, or demanded their share of anything that they had not honestly earned. I failed to see any humor in the alleged "joke" because, at the tender age of 16, I already knew Way more white folks who filled the bill, than I did black folks. That was now 42 years ago, but I haven't changed my opinion or definition of the "accursed word". To date, if I am speaking to anyone who knows the real me, as opposed to opinions formed by someone who is only reading a blog, I still use the word in conversation. The ones I use it on the most, in political conversations, are the last three pink-skinned presidents of these Untied States. However, again, in personal conversations with friends & co-workers, both black and white, I do not hesitate to use it about other well-known dark skinned perpetrators of evil, lies, theft, murder, wars, etc. Al earned the title, IMHO, when he championed the now-debunked, discredited "Tawana Brawley" case. That's when he bloviated, ad nauseam, about the evil, evil white men who had done this awful crime to an innocent young black girl, even moving here HERE, 15 miles from me, to Virginia Beach, Virginia, to protect her from those who wanted to silence her at any cost. Then, she told her mother that she had made it all up to explain why she hadn't come home that "fateful" night, and ol' Al kind of said, oh well, we meant well. Before this particular Incident/Occurance, NO ONE IN AMERICA, (with the exception of personal family & friends) had EVER HEARD OF the Irrevent, lying, race pimp, AL SHARPTON. He is a construct of the PTB, and anyone who puts any stock in his lying, self-serving crap, is A DANGED FOOL!!! Does that at least make my position clear on this particular "political puppet"??? As a complete contrast, I have alway enjoyed Mr. Bellafonte's singing; and, I totally concur with his political stance, and his courage and aplomb when dealing with Mr. MSM, Wolfie Blitzkrieg. .......The Floydinator

Posted: **Wed Jan 25, 2006 11:17 pm**

Here's the whole transcript (I couldn't get the video links to work): BLITZER: President Bush today defended his tactics in fighting the war on terror even as critics like Harry Belafonte keep trying to hold his feet to the fire. Joining us now from New York is Harry Belafonte. Mr. Belafonte, thanks very much. Welcome to THE SITUATION ROOM. BELAFONTE: Thank you, Mr. Blitzer. BLITZER: The new Gestapo. You know, those are powerful words, calling an agency of the U.S. government, the Department of Homeland Security with, what, about 300,000 federal employees, the new Gestapo. Do you want to take that back? BELAFONTE: No, not really. I stand by my remarks. I am very much aware of what this has provoked in our national community. And I welcome the opportunity for us to begin to have a dialogue that goes other than where we've been having one up until now. People feel that I talk in extremes. But if you look at what's happening to American citizens, a lot is going on in the extreme. We've taken citizens from this country without the right to be charged, without being told what they're taken for, we've spirited them out of this country, taken them to far away places and reports come back with some consistency that they are being tortured, that they're not being told what they've done. And even some who have been released have come back and testified to this fact. BLITZER: But let me interrupt for a second. Are you familiar -- and I'm sure you are, because you're an intelligent man -- what the Gestapo did to the Jews in World War II? BELAFONTE: Absolutely. BLITZER: And you think that what the Department of Homeland Security is doing to, you know, some U.S. citizens suspected of terrorism is similar to what the Nazis did to the Jew? BELAFONTE: Well, if you're taking people out of a country and spiriting them someplace else, and they're being tortured, and they're being charged without -- or not being charged, so they don't know what it is they've done. It may not have been directly inside the Department of Homeland Security, but the pattern, the system, it's what the system does. It's what all these different divisions have begun to reveal in their collective. My phones are tapped. OK? My mail can be opened. They don't even need a court warrant to come and do that as we once were required to do. BLITZER: But no one has taken you or anyone else, as far as I can tell, to an extermination camp and by the tens of thousands, or hundreds of thousands, even millions decided to kill them, which is what the Nazis did. BELAFONTE: Well, Mr. Blitzer, let me say this to you, perhaps, just perhaps had the Jews of Germany and people spoken out much earlier and had resisted the tyranny that was on the horizon, perhaps we would never have had... BLITZER: Well, wait a minute, wait a minute, are you blaming the Jews of Germany for what Hitler did to them? BELAFONTE: No, no. What I'm saying is that if it an awakened citizenry, begins to oppose the first inkling of the subversion of government, of the subversion of our democracy, then perhaps an early warning would have saved the world a lot of what we all experienced. I'm not accusing the Jews at all. BLITZER: Well, I just heard you say perhaps if the Jews of Germany had done something earlier then that might not have happened. That's what I thought you were getting at. BELAFONTE: Well, what I was getting at really is that if all citizens, the Jewish community, the Christian community and all else had taken a very early aggressive stand rather than somehow suggesting or thinking or feeling that this would have gone away, we might have found that Germany would have been in a far different place than it wound up in. BLITZER: Let me get through some of these other points, because we don't have a whole lot of time. BELAFONTE: OK. BLITZER: When you were in Venezuela with Hugo Chavez, you said that Bush is the greatest terrorist, the greatest tyrant. Are you saying that President Bush is worse than Osama bin Laden? BELAFONTE: I'm saying that he's no better. You know, it's hard to make a hyperbole stick. I obviously haven't had a chance to meet all the terrorists in the world, so I have no reason to throw around the words like the greatest or make some qualitative statement. I do believe he is a terrorist. I do believe that what our government does has terror in the center of its agenda. When you lie to the American people, when you've misled them and you've taken our sons and daughters to foreign lands to be destroyed, and you look at tens of thousands of Arab women and children and innocent people being destroyed each day, under the title of collateral damage, I think there's something very wrong with the leadership. BLITZER: What you did say in Venezuela was that President Bush was, and I'm quoting now, the greatest tyrant in the world and the greatest terrorist in the world. BELAFONTE: Yes, I did say that. BLITZER: So you did use the word, the greatest. Here's what you were quoted as saying in "The Raleigh News and Observer" on January 16th. And I'll let you amend or clarify your remarks. "When you have a president that has led us into a dishonorable war, who has killed tens of thousands, many of them our own sons and daughters, what is the difference between those who would fly airplanes into buildings killing 3,000 innocent Americans? What is the difference between that terror and other terrors?" Now that raises the issue of moral equivalency. Are you saying what the Bush administration, what the president is doing is the moral equivalent of what al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden ordered on 9/11? BELAFONTE: I think President George W. Bush, I think Cheney, I think Rumsfeld, I think all of these people have lost any moral integrity. I find what we are doing is hugely immoral to the American people and to others in the world. BLITZER: And the same, or if not worse than al Qaeda? Is that what you're saying? BELAFONTE: Well, I don't want to make those kind of comparisons. I'm not too sure all of what al Qaeda has done. Al Qaeda tortures. We torture. Al Qaeda's killed innocent people. We kill innocent people. Where do the lines get blurred here? BLITZER: Well, I think the argument is, and correct me if I'm wrong, that al Qaeda deliberately wanted to kill as many people as possible in the World Trade Center and those two buildings. They didn't care if they were executives or janitors or crooks or anybody else. They just wanted to kill as many Americans as possible. The U.S., when it goes after terrorists, there may be what's called collateral damage, but they're trying to kill enemies of the United States, those who have engaged in terror or similar actions. Do you understand the difference? BELAFONTE: I understand the difference. What I don't want to get stuck with, or be guided by, is what you call collateral damage. That does not cleanse us morally. All of a sudden, it's beyond our capacity or our means to have made a difference in what we've done to thousands and thousands of Arabs. I'm quite sure if you went through each and every body, you would find that somebody was a baker, somebody was a store keeper, somebody was a cab driver, somebody was a student. I don't know, you know, murder is murder. And just because you may do it under different guises does not remove the moral imperative. We are in this war immorally and illegally. And we have no business doing what we do. BLITZER: What about -- and these were very, very damning words that you said a few years ago, and I wonder if you still stick by them. When you call Colin Powell, the secretary of state at that time, or Condoleezza Rice, the president's national security adviser now the secretary of state, plantation slaves. It's one thing to disagree with them, but when you get involved in name calling with all the history of our country, plantation slaves, isn't that crossing the line? BELAFONTE: Not at all. As a matter of fact, there are a lot of plantations in America where people are slaving away their lives. You know, one of the big problems that we have in this country is the inability to be honest and to be straightforward. We've never had a dialogue in this country on the real issues of slavery. I don't even want to get stuck there. But what I said about Colin Powell is that he serves his master well. And in that context, I was asked to describe what that meant. And I used the metaphor of slavery and the plantation. And I stand by it. So Colin Powell was viewed to be this rather moderate, honest human being. He stood before the United Nations and lied and knew he was lying. I mean, where do we draw these lines here? BLITZER: How do you know Colin Powell knew he was lying? He says, and he's said as many times, he says he thought he was giving accurate information, although he subsequently learned that it was not accurate. But there's a difference between misspeaking and lying. BELAFONTE: Mr. Blitzer, you have access to a lot of information. More than once we've discussed the fact that Colin Powell went before his president, went before others and said, "I can't say this. It is not correct. There are things about it that touch me deeply and disturb me." And all of a sudden there he was in front of the U.N., despite this disclaimer, doing what he did. The world's at war. People are dying every day. These are human lives. Where do you draw this line of distinction? Is it because they're over there and we're here? Is it because we sit on some righteous place saying that we're the finest nation in the world and that all else is less than we are? That's unacceptable in 21st century society. BLITZER: Harry Belafonte, unfortunately we have to leave it there, we're out of time. But it was kind of you to spend a few moments with us here in THE SITUATION ROOM. I see you're not backing away from one word of what you said. BELAFONTE: No, I can't. Dr. King is my mentor and I believe in truth, and that's what I'm doing. BLITZER: Harry Belafonte, joining us in THE SITUATION ROOM, thank you very much. BELAFONTE: Thank you, Mr. Blitzer.

Posted: **Wed Jan 25, 2006 11:23 pm**

maryk, I had already read the transcript earlier today, and I think he rocked "Wolfie Blitzkrieg's" world, but I noticed you posted it with no comment. So, whaddaya think, ladybug??? ........Floyd de Cat Luvver

Posted: **Thu Jan 26, 2006 1:03 am**

What do I think? I think everyone with anybody who listens to him/her should speak the truth this well and powerfully. --MaryK

rigorousintuition.ca

Harry Bellafonte continues "proud Black American tradit

Harry Bellafonte continues "proud Black American tradit

Re: Harry Bellafonte continues "proud Black American tr

Re: Harry Bellafonte continues "proud Black American tr

wolfmoon

Re: wolfmoon

Re: wolfmoon

Re: wolfmoon

Re: wolfmoon

Re: wolfmoon

Re: wolfmoon

Re: Missed Belafonte on Blitzer, sorry.

Al Sharpton is not that sharp

Re: Harry Bellafonte continues "proud Black American tr

HARRY "B" ROCKS!!!!!!!!

Re: HARRY "B" ROCKS!!!!!!!!